The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - The Nuclear Threat - Could Canada Do More?

Episode Date: October 11, 2022

With the situation in Ukraine tense and Russia’s threats of using nuclear weapons still on the table, could Canada be taking a more active role? Former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy thinks so and Brian Stewart agrees. Both are guests on The Bridge today.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Canada and the debate and discussion around nuclear weapons. Is the country doing enough? We, welcome to a new week. Yesterday being, of course, the Thanksgiving holiday. And what a great weekend it was. I'm not sure what it was like in your neck of the woods, as they say. But it was gorgeous in southwestern Ontario. Pretty much the whole weekend

you know it wasn't hot but it was warm and it was for the most part clear blue skies and the colors the colors were spectacular in uh in and around theford area. And it was a weekend for walking. It was a weekend for being with family. And we had three generations of our family around for the holiday weekend and a nice Thanksgiving dinner on Sunday, which gave us all that moment to be grateful, to be thankful for what we have and what we share and what we share with others when the moment is there. So it was a great weekend and really appreciated the break and hope you enjoyed the encore edition of the bridge yesterday.

But we're off to a start today, kind of a special start here on the bridge. It's Tuesday and Tuesdays has been for months now, kind of the Ukraine day, right? And we bring in Brian Stewart and Brian is ready to go again this week. But first off, we've got a special guest. And that special guest is somebody I bumped into about 10 days ago when I was in Winnipeg. Well, I more than bumped into him. I was part of an evening to celebrate the legacy of Dr. Lloyd Axworthy

politician one who I'd covered in my Manitoba days in the 1970s then in Ottawa when he was a cabinet minister in both the Pierre Trudeau governments and the Jean Chrétien governments.

And last off as foreign affairs minister, where he made a mark around the world. Was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his action on trying to clear up the landmines situation. And that nomination came not from a Canadian, but from an American. I believe it was Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont, the Democratic senator who nominated Lloyd Axworthy for the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, on that evening in Winnipeg 10 days ago, Lloyd said to me at one point,

he said, you know, I listen to The Bridge, and I especially listen on Tuesdays, because he has great admiration, as do I, for Brian Stewart. And he said, I've been listening to you guys discuss the situation in Ukraine and discuss the situation surrounding the threat of the use of nuclear weapons by Vladimir Putin. And I just want you to know that anytime you want to talk to me about that, just call me. He says, I've got things to say about that. So I thought, okay, let's do that. With particular emphasis on the situation of where Canada is on this issue and what kind of a role are we playing? Should we be playing? Could we be playing? So all of that is open for discussion with Dr. Lloyd Axworthy. So let's get right at it.

Let's get to our conversation with the longtime manitoba liberal and after he finished in politics he was one of the country's leading academics if you will uh he was president of the university of winnipeg and that was part of the celebration that night in winnipeg 10 days ago, recognizing not only the political activity of Lloyd, and I think I mentioned at the time, it was a very bipartisan crowd. There were NDPers there, there were conservatives there. There was a real bonding of the Manitoba community on that night. Anyway, let's get to our conversation with Lloyd on Ukraine and on the situation and discussion surrounding nuclear weapons. So, Mr. Axworthy, where do you think we are on the nuclear question?

In light of the fact that Putin has made the nuclear threat, the world has reacted in some fashion to it. Where do you think we are on this issue? Well, I think most importantly, Peter, is that we are once again awakened to the incredible threat that nuclear weapons pose for all of us. There was a real complacency for a long time. We were talking about terrorism and climate and all the other kinds of harassment of the apocalypse that we're facing globally.

But the nuclear thing was kind of tucked away. It was like somehow the Cold War took care of that or the Cuban Missile Crisis solved it. Well, I think he brought it back center stage and realized that not only we continue to be vulnerable but the threat that it poses is so incredibly massive and existential

that we have to pay attention. At least I think we're now talking about it and debating it like we're doing right now. Do you think we are talking and debating it enough? Obviously, you and I are talking about it, but in terms of world powers, including Canada, is it being discussed enough? Well, I don't think we're gearing up for it. I think there's been a real declension of expertise, of experience, of serious research, of serious engagement. You know, I mentioned to you before that Canada, in my view, has a vocation.

We were the first non-nuclear country. We had all the assets. A guy named Karl Martin, who was a mathematician from Manitoba, was the head of the design at Los Alamos. C.D. Howe was on the committee that decided on development. We decided not to make a bomb. To me, that always said, just like we think hockey or poutine is part of our DNA, I think the idea of being anti-nuclear should be part of what Canada represents. But come

I think it was 9-11 that really knocked the stuffing out. And since then, we've been very quiescent. We've been totally non-engaged. And I think from time to time poor Mr. Jolie has mentioned it, but it's been no more than that. So we really are sort of right now, I don't think living up to our responsibilities. Well, you know, some would say, look, we're a middle power at best. What influence can we actually have on an issue like this well one of the voices that we raised was that non-nuclear powers have as much right to be involved in the debate as the guys who carry

the weapons uh because we're all going to be effective there's no way there's no boundary that will stop radiation or the nuclear winter from coming. And secondly, I think that we've shown in the past that we can have an impact. You know, one of the kind of memories I have of being part of something interesting and important was when Pierre Elliott Trudeau, at the end of his tenure in 1984, took off on a tour of countries to argue for global disarmament. People thought he was crazy. He took a lot of bashing. But the reality is, six months later, Reagan and Gorbachev met in Iceland to talk about nuclear disarmament.

Caused an effect? I think so. Can I give you one more example? In the 90s, we set up a major parliamentary review of nuclear strategy and policy for Canada. And it came out with some very strong recommendations from the parliamentary committee that we really challenged NATO's first strike view, which is very provocative and still is. And we took it to the summit. We argued for it. We asked for a review of NATO. We got shot down by the Americans and the Brits. But the reality is we got a lot of people at the time really beginning to think how do you, that this sort of

notion that using nuclear weapons in a first strike is a safe thing to do is just a bunch of balderdash. So we got a debate going. So I just think, yes, there is a role to play. And I think particularly now, because of the direct implication that we have about the impact because of Ukraine. And there's no doubt that if Putin goes ahead and uses tactical weapons, then there is going to be a real chaos in the world security of which we're a part.

What could we be saying right now? Well, I think there's a couple things here. I mean, first, I'd really like to see Canada kind of change its position and join what is now, I think, an important movement. And that is for over 100 countries have now signed a paper, but making a statement that because of Putin's threat, he's now in danger of breaking a fundamental standard norm. that. The Russians and Putin have made a big deal of trying to keep countries in the global south, in Africa, America, Asia, sort of on side, at least neutral when it comes to their invasion. If, however, we could link up that invasion with the threat of nuclear weapons, a lot of these countries who realize just how vulnerable they are might begin to change their mind. We might be able to change some international dynamics around that issue.

And secondly, I think that we should be putting things forward right now. We should be asking for, in Canada, I would right now in the year 2022 begin a major parliamentary review of our own position on nuclear weapons and how that fits into the changing world that we're in. Let me ask you a more direct question about nuclear weapons in Canada. Most military analysts assume that if there is a nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States, the battleground isn't going to be Ukraine or Eastern Europe. It's going to be the Arctic and the Canadian Arctic, a good part of. In terms of that discussion, is there one even going on about what that could mean for Canada? In fact, there's some interesting, it's a good question to ask because the Arctic Council, which includes Russia as a sharper member,

they were part of the original group of countries that we brought together. Way back, it's almost 25 years ago. Russia is still a part of that, and the Council is still functioning. How about using that to start engaging the Russians? What's that going to do to the Arctic in terms of the fragility of the plant life and the melting of the permafrost and all the other. I mean, it's a very fragile ecosystem. You have a dose of radiation coming in.

You're wiping out a huge ecosystem that we all share in the north. And that point you raise is the right one. Why isn't Canada out there talking about this and making sure that the Russians get the message that this isn't just something that Putin can do to save face in Ukraine, that he's in danger of risking something that's vital to the well-being of Russia itself? You know, it's interesting you mentioned the Arctic Council because it's often forgotten and shouldn't be that it was that Mary Simon, who is the current governor general, was a crucial part of the formation of the Arctic Council. Well, the last point on this, and this kind of harkens back to the 60s when you and I were young guys. But, you know, there was a much discussion about whether or not to have nuclear weapons based on Canadian soil. And the Americans clearly wanted us to do that. We resisted eventually.

Does that debate come back again in this era, given the stakes that we're witnessing now? I don't think it has to happen the same way. We don't have to store the weapons. I was part of that movement. In fact, I left the Liberal Party for three weeks and wrote to Mr. Pearson saying, you just can't do this. But I think where we do have some real vulnerability

is that there's now an effort underway to once again sort of reintegrate all our defense systems into the americans defense system you know their generals are coming out we're all promoting it multi-billion dollar investments for radar and being able to detect missiles and so on part of that's true but i'm still nervous that we get too closely tied in. We lose our independence of decision making. It's the one thing that I think has always been important. There's a wonderful statement in a biography by George Bundy. He's an old-time U.S. diplomat. Wrote his memoirs and talked about a meeting that he was part of where Mackenzie King and Pearson met with Truman

and himself and the U.S. Secretary of State, where Canada said, not only are we not becoming a nuclear power, but we're going to go out there and talk about nuclear power should be under the control of an international agency managed by the U.N. Well, of course, the Americans dusted that off. But McDoan's money said, isn't it kind of curious and constructive that we have a neighbor who's prepared to give us a little truth to power. And I think we still play that role.

I've got a feeling something tells me that this conversation is going to come up even more in the months and perhaps years ahead in light of the things that have happened in the last year. So I appreciate your thoughts on this,

and I'm sure we'll have this discussion again. Thanks very much. Okay, Peter. My pleasure. Thanks. Lloyd Axworthy in Winnipeg, talking to us in the last couple of days about this situation involving the potential for the use of nuclear weapons and what Canada could be or should be saying in all this.

So I was anxious to have that chat. Glad we did. Near the end, there was a nice little admission from Lloyd Axworthy about his position in the early 1960s when the Pearson government was discussing the potential of basing nuclear weapons, American nuclear weapons, on Canadian soil. And he was very actively against that idea.

The Pearson government was actually for it for a while. And Lloyd is a young liberal in Manitoba. He hadn't run for anything at that point, but he was a young liberal organizer and everybody knew that one day he was going to run somewhere. As he admitted in that little discussion, there was a period of a couple of weeks, three weeks, I think he said said where he considered leaving the liberal party and joining the ndp uh which would have been interesting wouldn't it uh but in the end the pearson government backed down there was a lot of uh opposition to the idea and uh and and lloyd in his case decided to stay with the liberals in fact in a couple of years later, in 1968, in the 1968 general election,

Lloyd ran in the riding that he'd grown up in, Winnipeg North Centre. And who was the MP for Winnipeg North Centre? The long-time NDP member for Winnipeg North Center, Stanley Knowles. And so that was an epic battle. Actually, Lloyd did pretty well in that battle, lost by only a couple of thousand votes. But Stanley Knowles kept the seat and kept the seat well into the, through the 60s, the 70s, and I think into the 80s. And he'd been a member since the 40s.

So he was there for a long time. The only time Stanley Knowles lost a seat was 58, in the famous deep sweep of 1958. He lost the seat then, but got it back again a few years later in the following election. Anyway, a little bit of election trivia. Lloyd Axworthy is an NDPer. It might have happened, but it didn't. So Tuesdays, as you know, is for Brian Stewart and his take on things,

including his take on what Lloyd Axworthy just had to say. So we'll get to Lloyd, we'll get to Brian right after this. And welcome back. Peter Mansbridge here with The Bridge for a Tuesday. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. We're glad to have you with us, no matter where you are listening from. Okay, we heard from Lloyd Axworthy. Now we're going to hear from Brian Stewart

with his regular Tuesday comments on the situation in Ukraine. And we're going to start off with his comments on Lloyd Axworthy. Here we go. All right, Brian, you and I have known Lloyd Axworthy for quite some time, heard him speak on many major international issues. And it was interesting listening to him and his thoughts on the Ukraine story, especially as it relates to Canada and to the nuclear question. What did you make of his comments?

Well, Lloyd is always very worth listening to on international affairs. He's one of Canada's brighter minds and, of course, has a great record in that area. One area he put his finger right on, which I thought, my gosh, you know, that's true and that's worrying, is when he talks about the complacency that the West seems to have fallen in over nuclear weapons. And, you know, I hadn't thought about that too much of late, but he's absolutely right. Back around, who knows when, around the 9-11, say, the world stopped going on a great deal about how to reduce nuclear weapons in the world, how to really bring them to heel, put them in safer boxes, all that kind of stuff that should be talked about. We haven't been talking about it much. I mean, we know, you know, in our day, we frequently put stories on air about the nuclear weapons and how they were being talked about, debated about, stored, what have you. Now it'd

be pretty hard up until this recent crisis to get a story on nuclear weapons because they're out of sight, out of mind. But, you know, there are 13,000 nuclear weapons in Europe generally, European countries only. That's not going into the Asia. We don't talk about them very much. And certainly Canada isn't very active in that field at all when it used to be quite active. I think his main point is we really have to start debating it, debating them, talking about them, having parliamentary debates, going around to world leaders and saying, are we happy with this? Even all the countries that don't have nuclear weapons, 100 plus, they have a right to make their voices heard in something this important. And I think when we don't talk about it, there's a tendency to the major powers just get a little bit, they're thinking of other things.

They're not looking into security and storage and things like that. We remember back in the 60s, I know those of us who were around, I mean, we began to really put more security on nuclear weapons when films like Dr. Strangelove and Failsafe and Seven Days in May came out. They became part of the culture. We talked about them, debated about them, worried about them, really frettretted about them i think we have to go back to at least uh really seriously discussing them you know we're not back in the 1960s in terms of threat level who knows where we'll be six months from now um but i definitely i think lloyd has a very good message, which is, you know, remember nuclear weapons? Let's get the world talking about them. And let's get Canada taking a special position in the hunt for a safer nuclear world.

Well, you could tell in my voice, my concern about Canada getting involved, my concern is that, well, who really listens to us? You know, we're a middle plower. We don't have the clout on the international stage to force this issue. Or do we? Clearly, Lloyd feels that we can if done the right way. And, you know, he's proved it in the past. He's shown where Canada has had a role. What do you make of that?

Well, I think if we look in the past, and not too distant past too, we define times when Canadian prime ministers, Canadian teams have gone out and made a real difference. You know, Pearson, of course, is an obvious one, Trudeau at various stages, Mulroney had a huge influence on the world in the fight against apartheid and the Ethiopian famine, 84-85, and unification of Germany. And, you know, Martin had a big influence on economics in the world. So I think what Canada has to do is get back into that mindset that, you know, people will listen to us if we

could put together a really cogent argument and show that we're dealing for everybody's good, not just our own, and get together with like-minded countries. I thought Canada and Norway, for instance, always made a super team. Canada, Norway, Germany. And then you start adding to that a block of concerned countries that gets bigger and bigger, and they start appearing heavily in the UN and visiting in the major conferences that we have in the world. The subject is brought up aggressively by these kind of countries, and they will, I think, get listened to. We can't expect miracles. Nobody's going to say, oh my gosh, Canada's come on side.

We better cut our nuclear weapons down by half or something. But they'll start noticing if the subject is brought up every few months at international conferences and in the UN and leaders of Canada and other countries, such as I mentioned, start really touring with this in mind, trying to get action on it. I want to move to the issue that's talked about most now in terms of the potential of usage by Russia of nuclear weapons. And that is, you know, this phrase, tactical nuclear weapons. As if it's kind of okay, it's not like the big nuclear weapons, it's not like the horror shows that we've talked about in the past and being afraid that could happen between countries. It's just tactical, and it would be used just in specific areas. Will you explain this one to me?

Because I don't understand this issue. Right. A lot depends on where they would be used. I'm talking about one being used, of course. If there were more than one, we'd be into a very different story. And I guess we've been sort of covering the tactical weapons and their arrival in Europe back to the late 50s and 60s. And I've seen a lot of exercises. Basically, these are a smaller yield nuclear weapon,

usually within 10 kilotons and under. That's almost the size of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not quite as big. They can be quite smaller than that. They can even be fired from cannon and howitzers, but would mainly come in via a missile or from an aircraft, what have you. Now, it depends entirely on their effect and how they're used. If one was used on a major city like, let's say, Kiev, unfortunately, or Kherson, or one of the Ukrainian cities, you would have hundreds of thousands potentially killed. If a tactical nuclear weapon of a 10 kiloton was dropped on Washington, they estimate 300,000 people would die and a great many would be

sickened by the fallout. But that's not usually how they're meant to be used because they have much bigger nuclear weapons for city busting and nation busting. Tactical weapons would be used against probably areas that are already bombed, power sources, logistical routes, power plants, things like that, that would really devastate a country, say, electrical grid. One blast would bring down, you know, three quarters of the electrical grid. Or they would be used in a military sense and battle against a unit, a whole battalion of say about 700 to 1000 people. And they could have a devastating effect if that unit did nothing but sit there and wait for a tactical nuclear weapon to come in. But normally they have found in exercises they've done with NATO,

and NATO is exercised on computers and all those kind of games you can do, war gaming, on exchange of tactical nuclear weapons. And they found they're actually not that very useful because military units are moving around a lot and they're undercover a lot they're in trenches or in dugouts a lot or behind very thick armor a lot and what happens with these small ones they they tend to take out an area i can't even guess not very large uh village size, small town size, and on a military field. And that might, you know, if the units were able to move very quickly away from that, or even on the incoming warning, would not have that big an effect. So the Americans have largely written tactical weapons off as a as being terribly useful in a war uh just for display

and but that i have a writer there what might be done is they will be used for display and that's exactly what putin might be thinking of now he doesn't want to bring china and india and the rest of the world screaming down on his back as well saying that was a brutal act and a war crime and the rest of it how could you use nuclear weapons for the first time since 1945 he might take out snake island that island off ukraine in the black sea that is basically uninhabited right now, drop one for display there, or drop one for a display somewhere else where the civilian casualties, deaths would be quite low. The problem with that is when you try and use a weapon for display, and this caused the Americans great concern when they used them

on Japan, was what if they don't work? What if you say we're going to drop it on Snake Island and something comes down and goes boom into Snake Island and doesn't explode? And the Russian humiliation goes right into the stratosphere. So we don't know how he would use it. We do know. I don't know whether I'm getting too far off the topic here. We're dealing with something that is awful and would be terrible because it would set a precedent. And if it could be used between Russia and Ukraine, why couldn't it be used, say, in the Middle East somewhere in one of those wars?

Or between Taiwan and China and Asia somewhere. So the absolute must is not to make sure that none are used. But if one is used in the tactical weapons, it won't be one of these, I think, wipe out scenes of a great city going up and smoke. That is very unlikely to happen to be more likely an explosion of a somewhat limited range in the countryside somewhere. Okay. But let me just close it out on this point, because I think what you're telling me is that we should be awfully careful about the language we use around tactical nuclear weapons, because they can be dramatically devastating. Yes. Depending on how they're used.

And even if they're used like for a specific target a unit or an island or what have you things can go wrong it's still including including fallout enormous fallout exactly exactly um so i you know i'm glad we've had this discussion because i i was getting lulled into this feeling that well you know it's tactical nuclear weapons it's not like nuclear weapons but in fact it could be right so then we got to be careful how we say that okay i've got time for just one last thing um for all the events that have happened over the last few days, the bridge linking Russia and Crimea, and a variety of other things in this continuing talk of nuclear.

There was something else that's happened that perhaps hasn't had the coverage it should have. And that is seemingly a deal between Putin and Lukashenko, the leader in Belarus, which could have an enormous impact on the Ukraine story. Yes, indeed. And I think last week or maybe the week before, I mentioned that there were some reports coming back from the borderlines between borderlands, Ukraine and Russia and Ukraine and Belarus, which is to the north, of firing across the border on an almost steady daily basis. And I thought this was extremely worrying because it clearly showed that the Russians were, again, mobilizing certain forces

in Belarus and in their own territory that at least look like they could be used for another attack into Ukraine from the north uh so what we take Ukraine is tied down fighting against the the fronts in the east northeast and the southeast suddenly a sneak attack comes in from Belarus with Russian troops and maybe even Belarusian troops, but that's not clear. The question here is, would Putin dare it? And also, would he get the okay from Lukashenko, who's kind of his puppy, is kind of like his puppet, I should say, both, but would be very aware of the fact that if that was to happen now he would have to expect the ukrainians to really hit deep and deep and very darkly inside the territory of

belarus itself and uh he'd have a lot of worries on his hands before he would be able to give an okay to russia to attack from that area. And also, I think the Russians have been aware that the Ukrainians don't trust them one inch, so they've been preparing their own units in the north. But that could become suddenly a very ferocious, I'm not predicting it will, but it's one of those things now that a lot of the military analysts are getting quite nervous about and wanting to get more intelligence on another front opening up in the war. that a lot of the military analysts are getting quite nervous about and wanting to get more intelligence on, another front opening up in the war.

And does Lukashenko offer anything more than territory, or does he have strategic military value as well? Oh, he has. He has a significant amount of military that he could use on the side of Russia. So far, he's been extremely reluctant to have anything to do with it. And I can't imagine the amount of arm twisting the Kremlin would have to do to make him say yes. He's basically there kept mad. I mean, he was only kept in power because of the Kremlin. But still, he could certainly say, you know, my army's not ready. You're trying to make me into like Mussolini in 1940.

I don't want to come in to this war and I won't. I'm going to learn from my lessons of history. But if he did throw his troops in, that would again expand the war in an extremely dangerous area. And I think then Ukraine would start screaming to the West, we're going to take our gloves off. You have to give us the proper weaponry now to fire deep into enemy territory if necessary. And that's something, you know, we really don't want to see that happen. But I could understand the Ukrainians saying,

if we're attacked now, sneak attack from Belarus, with Russian and Belarusian troops or just Russian troops, we are going to respond in a way that Belarus will never forget. Well, as you always do, Brian, you've given us more to think about and to a degree more to worry about on a number of these scores here. So, as always, thank you for this. We'll talk in a week. Thank you, Peter. Well, there you for this. We'll talk in a week. Thank you, Peter. Well, there you go.

Brian Stewart with his weekly, regular weekly Tuesday commentary column, if you wish, on the situation in Ukraine and dovetailing it with our interview today with the former Foreign Affairs Minister under a number of Liberal governments, Lloyd Axworthy. Glad to have them both with us on this day. We've got a couple of minutes left. I want to use it for one of our end bits that we talk about every once in a while,

little stories that I save, not necessarily related to the main discussion on the program. This one certainly isn't, but it has been. It's been a part of the discussion through the COVID years, if you will, and that is how we work. Now, you know the debate surrounding work from home, work from the office. That's still raging in different parts of the country and different parts of the world as to what is the best process, where you generate the most productivity

and where your employees are happiest. Well, there's another element to this discussion too, and it's interesting because there's a new study out on it. And I reference CNN Business for this. They wrote this story coming out of London in the last couple of days. And it's an interesting study because 70 different companies in the United Kingdom took part in this. It's a trial period. It's still going on. For six months, starting back in June, more than 3,300 employees at these 70 different companies have worked 80% of their usual hours for the same rate of pay in exchange for promising to deliver 100% of their usual work.

So you can do the math. 80% of their usual time, that's four days out of five. They're working four-day weeks. And the deal is, you work a four-day week, but you have to deliver what you used to deliver in five days. And then we'll determine whether that's actually a workable situation. It's being run by the non-profit organization Four Day Week Global, Autonomy, a think tank, and four-day week uk campaign in partnership with researchers

from cambridge university oxford university and boston college in other words there are some clear four-day week advocates involved in the setting up of this program but it's being monitored and run by researchers from pretty well-acknowledged places, Cambridge, Oxford, and BC, Boston College. Halfway into the pilot, 95% of the companies surveyed by 4-Day Week Global say their productivity levels have either stayed the same

or they've improved, while 86% say they are likely to make the routine permanent. There's been some unexpected benefits to all this, says one of the organizers. We've all lost a lot of weight. We were overweight before. The team has more time to prepare food, eat healthily.

Lots of people are going to the gym a lot more. So there you go. It is worth mentioning in this discussion that not everybody is game on this. The four-day work week is not a silver bullet. In June, a Gallup survey of more than 12,000 workers in the U.S. found that while those working a four-day week reported higher well-being, particularly among those required to work on site, there was no corresponding uptick in levels of engagement in their jobs.

Okay. So, got to keep that in mind as well. A little end bit, a little bit of interest. There you go. All right, that's going to wrap it up for this Tuesday, the beginning of this week after the holiday weekend. Lots more to come. Tomorrow, of course, Smoke Mirrors and the Truth with Bruce Anderson.

Thursday, it's your turn and the Random Ranter. Still getting letters about the electric vehicles, but getting lots of other letters too. We'll keep you up to date on what you have to say. And we'll see what the rander's got to say this week. He's moving on to a different topic. Or so he tells me. So that's Thursday.

And Friday, of course, is Good Talk with Sean Talley Bear and Bruce Anderson. That's it for now. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours.